tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN May 4, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
ans! get your vegetables without a side of gas. the activated charcoal in charcocaps adsorbs gas for fast gas relief, without passing the gas. charcocaps. put less boom in the room. even as the president and rudy giuliani team up to try to make the stormy daniels story as clear as mud. there is breaking news on the man who paid her. the wall street reports that michael cohen gained access to
more than $750,000 during the campaign. he raised the money in a pair of transactions. two people familiar with the transactions tell the journal they could factor in cohen business air force. being investigated by the fbi. this capped an a chaotic die at the white house. what do we know about why there are so many shifting stories about michael cohen and stormy daniels and president's role. rudy giuliani was corda fating on this. today the president said he didn't have the facts straight. >> a fascinating day here where it ends the week a very complicated and chaotic week. but more questions about what exactly the relationship was businesswise with the president michael cohen. and stormy daniels. for months we heard the president saying he had nothing to do with that. now we know of course rudy giuliani he did. now we learn the new information by the "wall street journal" reporting. it highlights the fact that is
an unorthodox business arrangement with the president and michael cohen. they've had it a long time rudy giuliani trying to explain that this week. trying to get it out all in the open which he says was a strategy discussed with the president clearly did not work. i think it speaks to the fact very complicated, very murky here. certainly not an ordinary relationship with the president and his lawyer. >> and jeff, what are you learning about what kind of precip giuliani had before the fox interview. >> anderson, we know that rudy giuliani has been working for the president for at least 15 days officially on the payroll as one of his lawyers. of course they've been friends a long time. the president has been looking for a lawyer for a long time. rudy giuliani met with the president about two weeks ago at mar-a-lago. decided to come onboard. they talked about this, had conversations about how this exactly would work. rudy giuliani wanted to get it out in the open. but today on the south lawn of the white house when i asked the president how is rudy doing i
was surprised by the president's answer. let's watch. >> he started yesterday. he'll get his facts straight. he is a great guy. but what he does is he feels it's a very bad thing for our country. i will tell you this, i will tell you this, when rudy made the statements -- rudy is great. but he just started and he wasn't totally familiar- you know with everything. and rudy -- we love rudy. he is a special guy. what he really understands is that this is a witch hunt. he understands that probably better than anybody. >> so we heard a lot about a witch hunt. what we saw there is undermining. the president was essentially throwing rudy giuliani under the bus for what he did not like obviously was the media coverage, the president initially praised rudy giuliani's defense of him. but then as we have seen so many times before he sees how this plays out, sees the white house is you know accused of changing
stories which in fact they did. he didn't appreciate that at all. so essentially throws rudy giuliani under the bus. the credibility crisis is ratted in the president and the oval office not his new lawyer. >> jeff, thanks very much i want to bring in the pan. kirsten power was gloria borger laura coates. gloria be the "wall street journal" report, all along michael cohen said i got a home equity line of credit to pay stormy daniels. i did it because i'm a loyal guy to mr. trump. he didn't even know about it. giuliani has now said it did have something to do with the election because it would have been bad. then he stepped back from that. he said the president paid michael cohen through the retainer to me. now the "wall street journal" was saying it wasn't just the $130,000 basically there were two transactions gained access
to about $700,000 zmo over 700,000. >> as the campaign started to heat up. we don't know what he used the rest of the money for. we don't know if it was for the president, other business deals michael cohen was involved in. >> we don't know why he got the loans. we have no idea. we have no idea. what we do know is that the timing is interesting because as soon as the president started taking off in february of 2016 was when michael cohen started doing all these transactions. but as you've been saying we don't toe why michael cohen didn't respond to the "wall street journal." >> we know he did pay of that $130,000 to stormy daniels which highly unusual. in and of itself. all along people are saying i never heard of an attorneying doing this. >> right. >> now there is an attorney who raised more money we don't know why. >> in ordinary times -- i don't remember what that is anymore. but in ordinary times if you were going to do something for a client of yours, you would tell them, number one. and you would just say bill the client for it.
number two. in this particular case, say with stormy daniels, the president originally said i knew nothing about it. and cohen said i do this on my own and i do it all the time for him. and rudy giuliani said sort of the same thing. so all of it kind of hard to put together. and parts of it are really hard it believe particularly because it was so close to the election. how could you not tell the candidate. >> laura coates you're a legal analyst. it's unusual for any lawyer to pay the $130 thousand. but the idea that a lawyer would on his own without informing a client. >> right. >> build up even more money, what do you make of it. you have ethyl violations about not informing your client about creating legal exposure for him including jeopardy and peril. and there is the notion there is a president who said he had a
minuscule amount of legal work he performed for the president. to build up a reserve for non-legal matters process the bulk of the work is not lawful or not law related is very odd. what you see here however is that if the "wall street journal" was able to uncover this one of the things that has been bounz are bouncing is that perhaps giuliani was trying to get ahead of information was coming out of whatever information was raided from michael cohen, his office, his hotel room. if the "wall street journal" was able to come across this surely a author o investigators who has the weight of the sdny behind him was has it as well and he was trying to create a narrative. to us it's all absurd. >> i'm still going back to the thought of russia collusion which i don't see here. and injury the danger we see is that when you have -- i keep saying this anderson over and
and over again. a special prosecutor prosecutor with a wide scope we all due respect i dent care how he got the line of credit. it's none of my business none of your business. it has nothing to do with the campaign. nothing to do with president trump. >> wait, you're saying did we don't know if this happened you're saying if an toerp for the president set up a slush fund to deal and with things that might be you know, damaging to the president, that's not of interest to you. >> or other things. >> i'm sorry we don't know if that's the case. but that's one possibility that won of interest to you. >> well no it wouldn't. because i looked at a "wall street journal" article by the former head of the fec, the chairman of the fec he said just on face value, the is 130,000 was not a campaign violation. now i'm not a lawyer. i didn't work in the fec but i would trust the former head of fec more so than political pundits. >> i am a lawyer. and i was a voting rights expert for the voting vision and. >> that's not the the fec. >> that is that's why i'm
clarifying the point. but the interesting notion. notion and the irony of your statement you cannot care about but robert mourl mueller has carried about it either. he is not taking over what's happening in the new york case. he has farmed it out to a team and said this is not under the purview of my mane. in that respect he already concluded it doesn't have to do with collusion. but why it's important is because you have a candidate -- we do have fec violations potentially that you point out, the distinction between the civil rights division and the notion that if you have contributions that are excessive and potentially for the purpose of contributing to a campaign. report it, or you don't disclose on a federal ethics form well then it's of interest to american people who care about democratic transparency which i know you do. >> if the president was aware and there was a bank fraud committed. isn't that relevant. >> the president said that he wasn't. i don't understand -- it's
called plus plausible. >> rudy giuliani said the president was wasn't until ten days ago. >> now he walks that back. we don't know the pr campaign that rudy giuliani was doing. the president was clearly not pleased with that. >> when the news originally broke we sat -- i don't know which trump sporer we were with. we were told we thought insane that we thought michael cohen was lying. we were all told we were completely crazy. i feel like you are doing again. just trying to say there is nothing to see here. i would say even if there isn't a fec violation i think it matters the president lied. i may be the only person in america that gets upset when he lies. the fact that he flat out lied and rudy giuliani went on there and said all of this and trump stood by him that matters. i don't understand why it doesn't matter. >> the president didn't lie. first of all the didn't lie about it. even if you want to go with rudy giuliani's time line. >> have you ever heard the
president lie, not personal to you i mean to the american people. >> have i heard the president lie? i can't -- off the top of my head i can't recall. >> not off the top of my head, no but what i will tell. >> you you believe like millions of illegal immigrants vote in california and that's why clinton clinton won the popular vote. >> i believe that hillary clinton election because she did a horrible job. >> that's what trump said. >> but. >> i think there is also a risk here we're jumbling a bunch of things together. miebl cohen clearly took out a line of credit which $750,000 whatever that is in new york. and we're talking in the property world in new york that's basically getting a shoe box. >> it's still a lot of money it's let's not pretend. >> michael cohen is in the taxi cab medallion business and has apartments and townhouses and different things. what with he don't know is what the money was taken out for. there is a temptation for folks to take that and jumble that into what does this have to do. >> i've been clear we don't know. >> i don't think anybody said
that. but the point. >> the point hold on one other thing going back to one other thing. i think one thing that trump world did smart this week was to actually establish or get going with the fact that they have now this outside council where they can start handling this. because for in past year i think if they had an outside apparatus where the things were directed and this wasn't the responsibility of the white house, i think they'd be much better off and i think that it was good that mayor giuliani got in front and started -- if there is news like this rather than wait for the "washington post" or "new york times" to break this news get it out there. clearly there is some discrepancy with. >> what are you talking about i don't understand. >> he did the president a favor by doing what he did on sean hannity? if that's the case why did trump come out and throw giuliani under the bus saying, he is not prepared, he is like of an intern that started yesterday. >> it was smart with the president when the president said we're going to have a statement with the president
essentially did then was cut off any of the drip, drip, drip the media wanted to go to because they were never going to be satisfied with any answer that mayor giuliani gave. >> what the news continues to do is continue to slice off any remain ing there is any credibility from the white house and to me and to many americans he he has zero credibility. when he comes out and muddles things more, than they were before then it makes things worse. and i agree with kirsten. it's important and it matters. >> we have to take a break. more on this and also a why a judge involving the paul manafort now seems to be the president's favorite judge. and what he said to mueller's team that did not bode well for mueller's team. later the man james comey was the one who suggested he briefed the president on the steele dossier. james clapper joins us. it took guts to start my business. but as it grew bigger and bigger, it took a whole lot more. that's why i switched to the spark cash card
from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. everything. what's in your wallet? so allstate is giving us money back on our bill. well, that seems fair. we didn't use it. wish we got money back on gym memberships. get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it. ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma ♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun♪ ♪now i'm gonna tell my momma
♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ ♪ brillando, brillando, brillando!ns™ ♪ ♪ juntos siempre vamos a estar ♪ brillando brillando brillando. ♪ ♪ brillando ♪ ♪ soñando. ♪ ♪ bailando, soñando, brillando ♪ and it's time to get outside. pack in even more adventure with audible. with the largest selection of audiobooks. audible lets you follow plot twists off the beaten track. or discover magic when you hit the open road. with the free audible app, your stories go wherever you do. and for just $14.95 a month you get a credit, good for any audiobook. if you don't like it exchange it any time. no questions asked. you can also roll your credits to the next month if you don't use them. so take audible with you this summer... on the road...
we're talking about michael cohen money, repaying payoffs, truth and lies and more welcome to washington on friday night. back with the panel. i mean, jason just in terms -- you're a great communication attention expert. just if terms of you know communications, what do you make of just kind of the rollout of rudy giuliani. because he was saying he coordinated with the president. but if you you've got to correct the stuff the next day and then the next day to another statement, that's never a good sign.
>> well lab of a unique vantage point in that i worked for mayor giuliani on his 2008 case and president trump on his 2006 race. i know both men well. there is a massive difference between being the principal and speaking on behalf of a principal. especially speaking on behalf of the principle, the current president of the united states, one of the greatest speakers out there. there is always that little bit of a -- a little bit of a daylight between them even though you might say there is no daylight between the person that you spoke speak for and the principle there is always going to be some. i think when mayor giuliani went out the first interview was good. they had one or two interviews too many. but, again, this is part of the challenge again when you speak on before of say the president of the united states. because not only do you speak but you have the legal dynamic. well, no because that's the
point. >> >> base che talked about him the way like the grade school gym teacher talked about you. he made a good effort. >> hold on this is the point i made in the last segment. what the president did when the president went out he essentially cut off any of the talk the drip, drip, drip or people going at the time line or trying to poke holes in anything they were saying. >> but he said what he said was not right how can you say giuliani is doing a good job. >> giuliani has thick skin. he is good enough friends with president trump if there is a little bit of a love tap or pump rudy is fine. >> it's not a communications problem. >> it's a truth telling problem it's a legal problem. they dent have a legal strategy. so first of all, they are getting together a new team. they had an old team didn't work out so well. now they have a new team. they don't have a legal strategy.
that's why they don't is have a great press strategy. because they don't have a clear message. so you can't blame it oul all on sort of the press person because if there were a clear message, maybe someone would be giving it. and i've been told they are looking for somebody to sort of be the person out there giving the message. >> this goes to my point -- this foes to my point that they should have had this in place a year ago. i'm glad they're getting mayor giuliani and jane rascon. and getting people out there. >> don't you think you ought to be read in before you become the spokesman. >> this is how i think this happened. this is exactly how i think things happened with cohen. he goes -- donald i got this don't worry about it i'll take care of don't you worry about gives him plausibility denialability. he does what he does with stormy daniels. rudy giuliani says mr. president i'm on the team now i'm a new yorker avenatti on a new york. he you need a pit bull i got it don't you worry about it he goes your my guy got you do it he
goes and does it and he says wait a minute that's not what i thought you were going to do you you're actually wrong. that's what you saw today the president said. >> but the reason why that's problematic is who did giuliani replace? he replaced ty cob. he is not the personal attorney of the president of the united states. >> that's the point i'm making he is not the personal attorney of the united states process. he is protecting the office not the incumbent. and the reason it's problematic when you have inconsistenty in that office it exposes the office holder later on to legal precedents that could harm others. you remember clinton and nixon were 20 years apart. for a 20-year period of time you had supreme court precedent that didn't imperil the office. that's now you have the exposure. that's the flaw in the communication strategy sfla what >> the president has now is he has bulldog that is can defend him. this is what's been missing for so long whether on the communications side or the legal side.
he has marty and jane rascon. emet flood. the president deserves top people out there defending him. >> didn't the bulldog make a bigger mess on the paper. i don't want to use the term under the bus because it's a cliche. but the argument has been all along he says it didn't have anything to do with the election. and rudy giuliani says it did have something to do with the election. >> clarified it a little bit today. >> but trump comes out and and says giuliani has none of the fact right. he needs to get his facts straight. he did not say maria you can't say he had none of them right. the president didn't say that did the president say that in sno don't say the president said things he didn't. >> he said he didn't have all the facts.
>> he said he is going to get all of his facts. >> it's the same thing jason come on. >> when you have to split hairs like that you know you're in trouble. because -- but here is the other problem. and everybody on the panel. so trump oms comes out. you used clisha throws giuliani under the bus. he is not up to speed getting facts. but yet he tweets himself supposedly himself the facts that or facts that giuliani talked about during the sean hannity interview in terms of what this payment was and what it was for. >> it was called clean up. he was doing cleanup for his own attorney which by the way should never happen. so. >> right. >> our reporting on giuliani -- he brought in giuliani because he likes a and feels comfortable. he brought in the rasconss. but he wanted a star.
emet flood, is somebody the white house counsel don mcgahn wanted in there. may be will be the white house counsel if mcgahn leaves. but the team hasn't gotten its act together. giuliani goes out there. maybe the president said i want you to go out there. everybody else was shocked. >> didn't they speak before hand. >> rudy said they did but who knows when. and the rest of the lawyers acted like i was told you threw a grenade. >> a judge questions robert mueller's case against paul manafort. the president weighs in. details ahead.
if you'd have told me three years ago... that we'd be downloading in seconds, what used to take... minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference... and do it like that. (snaps) if you'd have told me that i could afford... a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.
special counsel mueller's legal appear investigative juggernaut hit a speed bump. a federal judge questioning the motivations in the prosecution of paul manafort. the judge saying it was aimed at getting him to flip on the president. lawyers for manafort argue that the charges are outside the scope of the special counsel's authority. today speaking in dallas, the president singled out the judge for praise. >> judge t.s. ellis who is really something very special i hear from many standpoints he is is respected person. suggested the charges before the u.s. district court for the eastern district of virginia were part of mueller's designs to pressure manafort into giving up information on president donald trump or others in the campaign.
then how does this have anything to do with the campaign, the judge asked? let me tell you, folks? we're all fighting battles. but i love fighting these battles. it's really a grace. -- disgrace. thank you. >> and back now with the panel. certainly i mean that -- a big set become for the mueller team. >> it was a set back. yes. i think what the judge was saying was, look, i need justification for where you're going. in in lawsuit. and so what he wanted to look at is the unredacted version, you know congress got the redacted version. he wants to look at the unredacted version of what rosenstein wrote about the scope of the -- where the special counsel can go. >> right. >> and so the judge ipg -- it's a very legitimate question for a judge to ask. he asked it in kind of a snarky way. >> the judges was basically look
like you don't care about the charges against manafort you want to him to flip. >> that's largely the narrative people assume when talking about manafort that the justice department always wants -- the special counsel always wants a bigger fish than the one on the hook. but often times that's so incorrect that people are often looking at the person they're targeting and the person they're charge something their end game. but judges are almost notorious i know it's not normally said. they're notoriously difficult op the federal prosecutors. they point out you have to have proof. >> the judge raises the point paris you made at the beginning which is this is supposed be po russia and collusion. that's not where manafort seems to be. >> exact. and this is why a lot of people that are supportive of the president are skeptical at the direction that this investigation is going, especially as it weighs into michael cohen and now it's going deeper and deeper into his finances and seemsing to further in which from the original what we thought the original scope was with. and so all the judge did was clarify from the bench.
what a lot of people are starting to feel. and this is why it's so important that the mueller investigation is free from any sense of political -- politicalization. you know, the democrats that are on there and the people who had tweeted about hillary clinton -- tweeted negatively about president trump. that's why even though he fired them and got rid of them this is what people are talking about. he just determined it for a lot of people. >> laura if the mueller team can't convince this judge that this is within their scope and they are legitimately interested in the charges against paul manafort just on the face of it, is it possible the charges will be tossed out which is what the manafort team wants >> it's possible. remember he raised this in washington, d.c. and in response that court said no, no we're going forward baggs because although the people believe the directive of mueller was simply that focus on the collusion and the campaign, rosenstein also expanded it and said you are also able to look into the finances of paul manafort. and that's part of wrr directive
as well. in the expansive notion of why they are targeting manafort particular it would fall under that same thing. what they're hoping to do is that this is not somehow a vindictive as the president calls witch hunt against a person or they're trying to get him to flip. bank fraud is large willy zided on paper. it's not heavy witnesses. it's about the documents or not. the combination -- the documents rosenstein's memo, the unredacted version i think will give clarity to the judge. he but he may have been speaking largely to an audience of one. >> don't forget with manafort was doing business. it wasn't like he was doing business in the bronx he was doing business with in ukraine. >> right russian president. >> with -- right with a pro russian president. >> did this give you hope today? did you see this as a good development jason. >> i think it's a -- it's an affirmation i think for a lot of trump supporters think, that this investigation is well beyond of scope of what it's about. i think the comments today regardless of figure else that happens you'll see the comments
played over and over or tleet the words read out. these are tough comments from the judge for the prosecutors. saying that -- or questioning why they were going after mafrpt -- manafort. and was the goal to get at president trump. keep in mind the legal dynamic. they are in the courtroom and going after paul mafrpt. there is a political dynamic here. if this gets further down the road, if democrats got the house back and push forward with impeachment there is a strong political dynamic. you'll see the comments from the judge brought up over and over. and i have never seen a federal judge throw it down like that in such purely political terms and say what are you doing? i'm not a lawyer so i'm not this that world. it was shocking. >> obvious you're a democrat. did you think the judge went too far. >> i'm not a lawyer so i don't have -- obviously that legal expertise but from what i hear and you let me know laura -- but you can't really assume what a judge ultimately is going to do by what they say.
and the kind of comments that they make. i actually believe it's good he did this. because i agree that this should be a very high bar. because at the end of the day if the case -- if the judge let's the case move forward then the skepticism -- there is no where to go with the skepticism. if he doesn't then i'm sure the mueller investigators will go in another avenue. busy really do believe that the scope has everything to do with financial issues. with the bank issues, the finances, even as it goes back maybe ten or even more years. i've always said that if you can go back and follow the money and everybody talks about following the money, if trump is beholden to the russians in in any way shape or form because of any money they gave him in the past then i think that is an issue now he is president of the united states. >> kirsten, the president did continue to kind of distance himself from manafort. he called him a nice guy but
only worked for him a couple of months. >> he was the campaign manager. so -- it's interesting because when i was listening to it i thought -- i actually thought the judge sounded like he was auditioning for a jb in the trump administration. is this normal? >> it's normal in the sense that a judge will be critical and not giving cater blanch to a frl prosecutor to give you overwhelming power. in fact the judge said we don't like to just hand over the reins to anyone in particular. you have to give credit to march's counsel. they originally tried to bring these charges and lump them into the dc case saying it's easier streamline everything together. you know you are facing the 12-page indictment in washington, d.c. why must we go across the river and do it there? and march's counsel says it's not the original stuff therefore doesn't stem from the same stuff. we want it they did a good strategic step to have it questioned. had they net done that. the judge wouldn't have had
opportunity to be critical. what you see here is unlike perhaps other legal strategies of trump surrogates including rump you have a strategic effort across all fronts saying i'm attack bag the scope and nature of the charges. it's smart it won't be successful but they're mart >> what the judge did there has been so much of speculation and this could be -- the judge just said me the facts. be accurate. and here is the problem. american people said you say it's like he was auditions for a jb in the white house and you said he was talking to a audience of one. no he was doing what he was supposed. >> the audience of one i was referring to was robert mueller when he said i want ensure you're not just out to get the president the american charged with that role according to everyone, special counsel to investigate the trump campaign in the orbit is robert mueller. i wasn't making a den gas station about donald trump tor a federal judge but the point is well taken that many people believe he was talking to.
>> we got to get a break the point is he was reading from a cnn report. we're no longer fake news. >> thanks. up next the president and alis push the narrative. president was right to fire james comey. and come up with reasons why. we'll hear from james clapper who was director of national intelligence when this all started. whoever came up with the term "small business," never owned a business. there's nothing small about it. are your hours small? what about your reputation, is that small? when you own your own thing, it's huge. your partnerships, even bigger. with dell small business technology advisors you'll get the one-on-one partnership you need to grow your business. because the only one who decides how big your business can be, is you. the dell vostro 15 laptop, with 7th gen intel® core™ processors.
do you really think i woke up like this? new lumi glotion l'oreal's first glow-enhancing lotion for natural illumination say "bonjour" bonjour! to an effortless glow new lumi glotion. from l'oreal paris. as if i woke up like this. your company is and the decisions you make have far reaching implications. the right relationship with a corporate bank who understands your industry and your world can help you make well informed choices and stay ahead of opportunities. pnc brings you the resources of one of the nation's largest banks, and a local approach with a focus on customized insights. so you and your company are ready for today.
because antonio villaraigosa millions got it done.healthcare he defended women's healthcare, banned military-style assault weapons, banned workplace discrimination, and more. antonio for governor. this week saw another few bricks in the wall of explanations for the firing of james comey. the latest according to the white house being the president doesn't need a reason but his lawyer rudy giuliani is giving another one. retired lieutenant general james clapper was the director of national intelligence when it started. comey suggested he brief the president about the infamous dossier. director clappers joins me now. i wonder what you make about the evolving explanations from the white house about why comey was fired.
>> it's hard to know, anderson, what to make of it. i do think it's perhaps a reflection of trying to avoid either the appearance or the substance of obstruction. and, again, i'm not the lawyer here. but i do wonder about that as these changes occur, explaining why comey was fired. and then of course the press secretary is just saying well we don't have to explain it. well maybe technically they don't. but i think just as an obligation to the american public, there should be an explanation. >> and the -- of course the question also is how toes robert mueller view all of these changing explanations? and we don't know the answer to that. >> that's a great question. i'm sure he is wondering as well what actually was the motivation? you know, i guess i would go with the one the president offered himself, which was because of the investigation.
>> when you heard rudy giuliani the other day on television talk about fbi agents who -- raiding michael cohen. and michael cohen said they were courteous and professional, describing them as storm troopers. it seems like down is up and up is down when you have a republican use to be known as a a law and order guy calling fiv agents doing their job lawfully executing warrants nazi storm troopers. >> i thought that characterization is reprehensible in and of itself. this is part of the general assault on our institutions, notably law enforcement and perhaps lesser extent the intelligence community. which is not good for -- it's not god for the country. and it's certainly not good for the people in it. and the great men and women of the fbi that i know and have worked with over many years and to have them referred to that
way by a member of the president's team as storm troopers is really reprehensible. >> i want to ask you about north korea, you know, because there is -- rudy giuliani said he believes the three americans being held are going to be released. hopefully that is certainly the case. you actually went over to north korea. >> right. >> under the -- during the obama administration and got the release of two americans at the time. >> right. >> and that was all the americans being held at that time. can you talk about what that was like? i know you carried a letter from president obama. you didn't meet directly with kim jong un, right. >> no, i did not. for me it was pretty stressful. because north koreans have their own arcane processes for actually -- the actual administrative release of the prisoners. and it wasn't -- when i went to retrieve the two i did on november 14 it wasn't until the last minute whether it was for sure we were going to get them.
>> do they saw in advance of you going there is a good chance? or are you just going on kind of the -- >> well, yes, the expectation was in my case that they would be released. but they -- what they expected was a -- to use their term, a breakthrough, since i was the first cabinet level official to visit north korea since albrite. >> they want add high level official sflo they wanted with the promise i would get our two citizens out. but when i didn't show up through a breakthrough proms promise, peace negotiations they were bitterly disappointed and then played games with us for a couple of days. all to say i think the lesson is the less said the better. and it makes me nerves apprehensive when for pr purposes we are talking about
the release of the americans and that could give the impression to the north koreans if they're contemplating the release that they are being taken for granted. >> is it like negotiating with a rational actor? i mean, is it like a regular business negotiation? or is it punching into a marsh mallow you don't know what the ripple effects are. >> the north koreans are rational. and that was certainly reinforced when i engaged with them. they are very smart. and they had their own narrative they are committed to it. as long as you understand that and can deal with the narrative and can push back on them in a somewhat respectful way they're okay. we got our two people out. and that was the main purpose of the mission. i always felt a little frustrated though when i left
that we didn't use that opportunity to engage with them more. >> general clapper fascinating thank you very much. >> thanks anderson. >> coming up, a story of -- of -- well actually we'll just -- more news ahead. we'll be right back. it took guts to start my business. but as it grew bigger and bigger, it took a whole lot more. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. everything. what's in your wallet? what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration
of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss.
does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. well certainly not a slow friday night. more breaking news just breaking now goes straight to the heart
of what we've been talking about. "new york times" the maggie haberman on the buy line. here the lead of the story. president trump knew about a six-figure payment that michael d. cohen his personal lawyer made to a porn graphic film actress several months before he denied knowledge of it to accord to two people familiar with the arrangement. here is what he said aboard air force one. >> did you know about the $130,000 basement to stormy daniels? >> no. >> you have to ask michael cohen. he's my attorney and you're going to have to ask michael cohen. >> do you know where he got the money? >> i'm reading directly from the "new york times," it was not immediately clear when he
learned of the payment. at a time he was poised to pay for a story. three people said that mr. trump knew that -- at the time that the president denied it. lawyer r laura coates what do you make of it? he actually knew about it months before. >> you can certainly lie to the press and have the credibility crisis, you cannot lie and put yourself in a position for legal liability and expect not to have criminal exposure. the problem with telling a lie is to keep them straight. you have to remember the dates you gave. if you don't, there are opportunity for the very thing the president feared. he talks about perjury traps and created his own. i'm still waiting on the real big question here. that is, it's one thing to have
known about the payment but the federal campaign finance laws that you require that you knew about it and made for the purpose of trying to influence, contribute to or somehow be apart of an election or campaign. i think you are seeing a web of lies weaving around that exact thing. >> the president can make the argument that he was -- he knew about it and protecting about his family and didn't want to cause his wife public embarrassment and didn't have to do with anything with the campaign. like with the john edwards case, an argument that the people in the jury seemed to see. >> rudy giuliani said obviously this happened because of the election, right? and this is -- we're going to assume that rudy giuliani is familiar with donald trump's thinking on this. i think that's a problem. >> it directly contradicts what
rudy giuliani said that the president just learned about this ten days ago. >> it is the whole, why are you lying thing? they keep making up different stories. why not just say, yes, this happened and i was protecting my family. it becomes hard to believe them when they keep changing the story. >> a candidate can dough gnat as much as they want to their own campaign. if you make the donations and fail to report them or try to circumvent finance laws by having somebody issue alone that you repay following the election and attempt not to disclose information. >> we should point out earlier, like 40 minutes earlier, it seem this like a year ago broke a story that michael cohen all along we knew he said he paid
$130,000 to stormy daniels from a home equity line if the bank. in two trance actions able to amass more than $700,000, exactly what -- 774,000, the expect purpose of the money is not at this point clear. >> that's right. now that we learned another lie upon all of the lies told, people are going to assume that is a slush fund because michael cohen called himself a fixer. what else do you have to fix? are there other porn stars that you have to payoff? >> another lawsuit since been dropped but a friend of michael cohen said to erin burnett and i don't know why i am such a storehouse of this knowledge. my career is taking a strange turn. i remember him saying that
michael cohen, this was his purview. that he did this without necessarily doing this without informing the president. >> he describes himself as the tom haguen -- >> i believe it was #raydonovan. >> i did this to protect my family, the reason that doesn't pass the smell test because of the timing. the month right before the election. let's remember, the stormy daniels was about to come out in 2011. she gave the story to "in touch" magazine. if he was worried, why not pay him off then. >> the story just broke so i got about three quarters in before we came on air. the story does not say that president trump knew all of the
details about what was going on at the time that michael cohen -- >> he said he knew about this months before the air force one comment. >> hold hon a second. if he asked a question about did you know what the deal was or the financial structure -- >> did you know about the payment -- >> we don't know. >> he lied. >> maybe he didn't know exactly what was being put together so the president could be telling the truth and might not have known what michael cohen was doing -- >> or he could have lied. >> twowe have to take a break. everybody in the panel, we'll be right back. get it for jean who's always cold. for the sales team, it and the warehouse crew. give us the data we need. in one place, anywhere we need it. help us do our jobs better. with domo we can run this place together.
well that's that's your job i guess. ♪ no one thought much of itm at all.l people said it just made a mess until exxonmobil scientists put it to the test. they thought someday it could become fuel and power our cars wouldn't that be cool? and that's why exxonmobil scientists think it's not small at all. energy lives here. ♪ ♪ the powerful backing of american express. don't live life without it.
♪that i'm a traveller ♪i'm gonna follow the sun transitions™ light under control™ thank you for watching "360" cnn tonight starts now. >> we have two breaking news stories tonight, we are learning michael cohen took outlines of credit giving him access up to $774,000 during the presidential campaign. this is according to "the wall street journal" and the "new york times." he knew about the payments month before he told the ameri